The Borking Phenomenon: When Confirmation Hearings Go Wrong
The term “borking” has become synonymous with the act of aggressively questioning and criticizing a nominee during a confirmation hearing, with the goal of derailing their appointment. This phenomenon is named after Robert Bork, a Supreme Court nominee who was subjected to intense scrutiny and ultimately rejected by the Senate in 1987. Since then, several high-profile nominees have fallen victim to borking, their reputations tarnished and their careers derailed. Here are five famous people who got borked:
1. Robert Bork (1987)
The man who started it all, Robert Bork was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to fill a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. However, his confirmation hearing was marked by intense criticism from Democrats, who accused him of being too conservative and out of touch with mainstream America. Bork’s opponents seized on his past writings and statements, which they claimed revealed a pattern of ideological extremism. The Senate ultimately rejected Bork’s nomination by a vote of 58-42.
2. Clarence Thomas (1991)
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to replace Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the Court. However, Thomas’s confirmation hearing was marred by allegations of sexual harassment, which were leveled by Anita Hill, a former employee. Thomas denied the allegations, but the hearing became a media spectacle, with many commentators questioning Thomas’s fitness for the Court. Despite the controversy, Thomas was ultimately confirmed by a narrow margin.
3. Zoe Baird (1993)
Zoe Baird was nominated by President Bill Clinton to serve as Attorney General, but her confirmation hearing was derailed by revelations that she had hired undocumented immigrants as domestic workers. Baird claimed that she had not known about the workers’ immigration status, but her explanations were met with skepticism by lawmakers. The controversy ultimately led to Baird’s withdrawal from consideration.
4. Miguel Estrada (2001)
Miguel Estrada was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but his confirmation hearing was marked by intense opposition from Democrats. Estrada’s opponents accused him of being overly partisan and secretive, and they criticized his lack of experience as a judge. The Senate ultimately filibustered Estrada’s nomination, which was seen as a major setback for the Bush administration.
5. Brett Kavanaugh (2018)
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was nominated by President Donald Trump to replace Anthony Kennedy, but his confirmation hearing was marred by allegations of sexual misconduct. Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor, accused Kavanaugh of assaulting her at a high school party in the 1980s. Kavanaugh denied the allegations, but the hearing became a polarizing spectacle, with many commentators questioning Kavanaugh’s fitness for the Court. Despite the controversy, Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed by a narrow margin.
🚨 Note: The borking phenomenon is not limited to these five individuals. Many other nominees have faced intense scrutiny and criticism during their confirmation hearings, and some have ultimately been rejected or withdrawn from consideration.
These five examples illustrate the high stakes and intense scrutiny that accompany the confirmation process. While the borking phenomenon can be a powerful tool for holding nominees accountable, it can also be a double-edged sword, leading to unnecessary polarization and gridlock in the confirmation process.
In order to navigate these treacherous waters, nominees must be prepared to answer tough questions and defend their records. Here are some key takeaways from the borking phenomenon:
- Be prepared for intense scrutiny: Nominees must be prepared to answer tough questions and defend their records.
- Be transparent and honest: Nominees must be transparent and honest about their past statements and actions.
- Build relationships with lawmakers: Nominees should build relationships with lawmakers and engage in constructive dialogue to build trust and credibility.
- Be prepared for the unexpected: Nominees must be prepared for unexpected twists and turns during the confirmation process.
By following these best practices, nominees can reduce the risk of borking and increase their chances of success in the confirmation process.
What is borking?
+
Borking refers to the act of aggressively questioning and criticizing a nominee during a confirmation hearing, with the goal of derailing their appointment.
Why is it called borking?
+
The term “borking” is named after Robert Bork, a Supreme Court nominee who was subjected to intense scrutiny and ultimately rejected by the Senate in 1987.
How can nominees avoid borking?
+
Nominees can reduce the risk of borking by being prepared for intense scrutiny, being transparent and honest, building relationships with lawmakers, and being prepared for the unexpected.
